I think the pot just called the kettle black.

Wow, "horrible examples of landscape photography", "spectacular photos", "art photos"? It's interesting how subjective photography can be. But I don't understand the contradiction. If you don't like overcooked photos then how can they be spectacular? And although I don't prefer overcooked, too slick images like Mark's, I would be hard pressed to call them horrible. I would suggest that we try to at least be respectful of each other's opinions about what is good photography or not. And we kind of got off the topic of size matters. I thought the OP made an interesting and somewhat thought provoking comparison. Again, my opinion.

No. There are bridge cameras that claim to use a 1 inch sensor, but the actual sensor only measures a little over a half inch. This is from an older format that counted the size of the frame and housing for the sensor which measured an inch. But the sensor doesn't come close. This fact was revealed to me on this forum a while back. I looked it up and it is true. Thank you UHH.

I have had three LowePro bags or packs. They last well and are serviceable, but pale in comparison to anything by Think Tank or their new brand called MindShare. I have a back pack from them that has the padding I need for total comfort and it doesn't scream camera bag like my LowePro gear does. Sorry, only had one small Tamrac bag and never used it much, so I won't comment on that one. Check out Mind Share

I still use my Gossen LunaPro I purchase 50 years ago. It still work great. I also recently purchased a Honeywell Spotmeter with the zone system conversion scale added to it. I found it for about $70 on Ebay. Shop Ebay and don't spend a lot of money. There are plenty of good used lightmeters out there because no one wants them anymore, although I don't know why people don't use them.

I know everyone thinks you have a personal problem, but I have also had difficulty in some extreme backlit, bright situations. I worked with a 30D and now with the much better 6D. I sometimes need to move my eye up and down a little to get the right angle to see info at the bottom of the viewfinder. If I'm having a real problem, I just look at the data in the window on top of the camera. The problem doesn't happen often, but when it does, I have used these techniques to compensate. Hope this helps.

Well, I guess you have to choose, do you want to go to the trouble of changing lenses once in a while or have bad image quality on all your pictures? You have to decide if it is worth the effort. In my opinion, good photography usually is worth the effort.

Agreed. It may be the least expensive, smallest and lightest full frame camera on the market, but the 6D is NOT a beginner camera. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Sensor size and lens quality are the primary factors for image quality. That said, the 5D MK lll would be your best choice because of weatherproofing. If not, get the 6D ll. The 6D ll has an improved AF system over the 6D, so I've read. I've been using the 6D for three years. I have read that my camera has an inferior, outdated AF system. Can't prove it by me. I personally think AF performance is a factor of user performance as much as technology. You can pick up a new 6D for $1,000 and put the rest toward good glass. I feel no need to "upgrade" to a 6D ll. But I would take a 5D lll in a heartbeat.

You are also going to like having more control over shallow depth of field with a full frame camera. Also I think the 6D ll is 24K pixels, not 26K. Either way, sensor size, not pixel count, is your best path to image quality.

You made a good investment in the 100-400 MK-ll. I borrowed on for about six hours shooting Ospreys and owls one day. The images were superb. The focus was fast even on my 6D which is not known for its stellar AF. If a 400 will work for you, that is the lens to have.

I went to purchase a canon 100-400 MK-ll and walked out with the Tamron 150-600 G2 instead. It is the first time I ever put a nonCanon lens on any Canon camera. It is not the same quality as the Canon 100-400 MK-ll, but it goes to 600 mm. The image quality I get is quite comparable to what I get with my fixed focal length 400mm f/5.6, which is a Canon L lens. The reason I bought the Tamron 150-600 is because when you need 600mm, a 100-400 doesn't quite get it. I am very happy with my decision. Be aware that the Tamron G2 is superior to the G1.

I sure wish I could have been there. Nice job.

You are already compromised with that lens wide open at full telephoto. The best thing you could do to get its best performance would be to put it on a tripod and use shutter speeds of 1/1250 or faster. With the 3300, high ISOs will be a problem. If you insist on shooting hand held you need to upgrade your equipment.

And that is what I read also.

Or perhaps just a snap shooter and not a real photographer. Nah, you're probably right!